DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 10-15 remain pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 04/02/2026.
(a) The Applicant, via the claim amendments filed, overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 101 claim rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said rejections.1
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s submitted Remarks, filed on 04/02/2026. The Examiner below proceeds with a bona fide attempt to respond properly to each argument raised by the Applicant.
To begin, Applicant argues that “the Tagalpallewar et al. ’757 publication does not disclose the method of Claim 10,” and more specifically asserts that Tagalpallewar “necessarily takes place prior to, and for the purpose of, coupling the implement.” Applicant further argues that, in claim 10, “coupling takes place first, and subsequently, depending on the coupling, the visualization content is adjusted.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial matter, the Examiner finds the Applicant’s argument characterizes Tagalpallewar too narrowly as being limited only to a pre-coupling visual assistance process. While Tagalpallewar teaches visual assistance for coupling a loader with an implement, Tagalpallewar is not so limited. Rather, Tagalpallewar broadly teaches a virtual guidance apparatus for assisting operation of a work vehicle with selectable implements, including during attachment and during material handling operations after the implement has been attached. For example, Tagalpallewar teaches visual guidance assistance “during approaching and attaching the carrier 22 with a selected implement 24, and during picking up and dropping off and/or placement of a load” (Tagalpallewar, Paragraph [0045]).
Furthermore, Applicant argues that claim 10 requires “reading specification data of the mounted implement from a specification data memory” and “selecting a visualization data set from a visualization data library” as a function of the read specification data.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that Tagalpallewar fails to teach or suggest these features. Tagalpallewar teaches that the guidance control unit includes a memory device storing visual aid data, including an implement database. The implement database includes implement data sets correlating different implement types with attachment feature location data representative of physical attachment features of the implements. For example, Tagalpallewar discloses “a plurality of implement data sets correlating a corresponding plurality of implement types with attachment feature location data representative of one or more locations of one or more physical implement attachment features of the plurality of implements” (Tagalpallewar, Paragraph [0041]). This implement-specific physical configuration information reasonably corresponds to the claimed specification data.
Tagalpallewar also teaches selection of an implement-specific data set based on the identity of the implement. In particular, Tagalpallewar discloses that the guidance control unit receives an implement identification signal representative of the identity of the implement, and that the processor selects a corresponding implement data set from the implement database based on that implement identification signal (Tagalpallewar, Paragraph [0068]). Tagalpallewar further teaches that the operator interface may receive an implement selection signal from an operator and generate the implement identification signal (Tagalpallewar, Paragraph [0069]). Therefore, the Examiner finds Tagalpallewar teaches selecting implement-specific data from memory based on the selected or identified implement, which is the same functional relationship recited in claim 10.
Applicant further argues that Tagalpallewar does not teach configuring the visualization content of the touchscreen as a function of the selected visualization data set. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tagalpallewar teaches that visual aid data is stored in memory and used for generating virtual alignment target images on a display screen (Tagalpallewar, Paragraph [0041]). Tagalpallewar further teaches that the display unit displays visual movement instructions and virtual alignment target images superimposed on viewable images of the implement and tool carrier (Tagalpallewar, Paragraph [0043]). Accordingly, the selected implement data is not merely background information, but is used by the processor to generate and configure implement-specific visual guidance content displayed to the operator.
Applicant’s timing argument is also not persuasive. Claim 10 does not require the narrow interpretation asserted by Applicant, namely that no specification data may be read and no visualization content may be configured until after final mechanical coupling is complete. Rather, claim 10 broadly recites reading specification data of the mounted implement, selecting a visualization data set as a function of the read specification data, configuring touchscreen visualization content, and controlling the vehicle as a function of that configured visualization content. Tagalpallewar teaches the same functional relationship between a selected implement, implement-specific data stored in memory, processor-based selection of corresponding data, and display of implement-specific visual guidance content. Even assuming claim 10 requires configuration after mounting, it would have been obvious to continue using or reconfigure Tagalpallewar’s implement-specific visualization after the implement is mounted, since Tagalpallewar expressly teaches use of the system not only for attaching an implement, but also for picking up, dropping off, placement, and material handling using the implement (Tagalpallewar, Paragraphs [0039] and [0045]).
Applicant also asserts that “any combination of the Tagalpallewar et al. ’757 publication with the Hebert et al. ’191 publication would not include the above-noted features of Claim 10.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tagalpallewar is relied upon for teaching the implement selection, implement-specific data, processor/memory, display/touchscreen visualization, and operation based on the displayed guidance. For example, Tagalpallewar teaches selectable implements including a bucket implement, grapple implement, pallet fork implement, gripper, bale hugger, and bale spear (Tagalpallewar, Paragraph [0032]). Tagalpallewar further teaches a guidance control unit having a processor and memory storing visual aid logic and visual aid data for generating visual guidance content on the display screen (Tagalpallewar, Paragraphs [0041], [0046], and [0047]). Hebert is relied upon for the civilian tracked vehicle structure. The rejection does not require Tagalpallewar alone to disclose the claimed civilian tracked vehicle. Rather, the rejection relies on the combined teachings of Tagalpallewar and Hebert. Applicant’s argument therefore attacks Tagalpallewar individually for features supplied by the combined references and does not persuasively address the rejection as set forth.
Accordingly, the Examiner finds Tagalpallewar continues to teach or suggest selecting an implement, using implement-specific data stored in memory, selecting a corresponding data set based on the selected or identified implement, configuring visual guidance content on a display/touchscreen based on that selected data, and operating the vehicle based on the configured visual guidance. When combined with Hebert’s tracked vehicle teachings, the cited art continues to render claim 10 obvious.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagalpallewar et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2023/0340757A1 (hereinafter, Tagalpallewar), in view of Hebert et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0396191A1 (hereinafter, Hebert).
Regarding Claim 10, Tagalpallewar describes a method for … a support frame that extends longitudinally between a front and a rear …, a body frame that is arranged on the support frame and extends longitudinally across the support frame from the front toward the rear (body frame that is arranged on the support frame and extends longitudinally across the support frame from the front of the vehicle to the rear, Tagalpallewar, Figure 1 and Paragraph 0029),
…
-an implement carrier area that is arranged at the rear of the driver's cab on the support frame and/or the body frame and is configured for mounting different implements (body frame for mounting different implements, Tagalpallewar, Paragraph 0032 and Figure 1),
-a touchscreen that is arranged in the driver's cab and has visualization content that is configured for outputting operating information and for inputting operating commands (touchscreen for displaying and visualizing information and for allowing input operating commands, Tagalpallewar, Paragraphs 0053-0056 and 0069), and
-a data processing device that is connected to the touchscreen the method including the steps of: selecting an implement from a group of different implements;
-mounting the selected implement in the implement carrier area; reading specification data of the mounted implement from a specification data memory by way of the data processing device; selecting a visualization data set from a visualization data library comprising a plurality of different visualization data sets, each of which is associated with one of the different implements, wherein selection is carried out by way of the data processing device and as a function of the read specification data; configuring the visualization content of the touchscreen, wherein configuration is carried out by way of the data processing device and as a function of the selected visualization data set (user can select implement, which allows for information, such as the virtual tool implement, to be displayed for virtual guidance assistant, to achieve this, the implement would need to be stored in memory of a data library which is described, Tagalpallewar, Paragraphs 0053-0054, 0041-0047, and 0065-0069); and
-controlling the tracked vehicle as a function of the configured visualization content of the touchscreen (controlling of the vehicle based on the touchscreen inputs, Tagalpallewar, Paragraphs 0036).
Tagalpallewar does not specifically disclose the method to include a civilian tracked vehicle having a support frame that extends longitudinally between a front and a rear of the tracked vehicle, two sets of tracked running gear that are arranged on opposite longitudinal sides of the support frame, … a driver's cab that is arranged at the front of the body frame.
Hebert discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Hebert describes a track vehicle, which encompasses a frame, two sets of tracks, and a driver’s cab arranged at the front of the body frame (Hebert, Paragraphs 0015, 0042-0047 and Figures 1a and 1b).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Tagalpallewar to include a civilian tracked vehicle having a support frame that extends longitudinally between a front and a rear of the tracked vehicle, two sets of tracked running gear that are arranged on opposite longitudinal sides of the support frame, … a driver's cab that is arranged at the front of the body frame, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Hebert.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because having a tracked machine with a cab at the front allows for the driver to easily maneuver the vehicle by seeing what is ahead and allows for work implements, such as dumping to be located behind the cab (Hebert, Paragraphs 0003-0004).
Regarding Claim 11, Tagalpallewar, as modified, describes the civilian tracked method as claimed in claim 10, wherein the different visualization data sets in each case comprise display data that represent different views of the implement in question in different perspectives and/or in different operating states (vehicle system can include one or more visualization perspectives of the implement, Tagalpallewar, Paragraphs 0041-0047 and 0052).
Regarding Claim 12, Tagalpallewar, as modified, describes the civilian tracked method as claimed in claim 10, wherein a data interface of the mounted implement is being connected to the data processing device (implement may encompass a hardwired connection with the vehicle for helping in guidance of the apparatus, Tagalpallewar, Paragraph 0047).
Regarding Claim 13, Tagalpallewar, as modified, describes the civilian tracked method as claimed in claim 12, wherein the implement includes the specification data memory, wherein the data processing device is configured to read the specification data from the specification data memory via the data interface (read data from memory, Tagalpallewar, Paragraphs 0041-0047 and Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 14, Tagalpallewar, as modified, describes the civilian tracked method as claimed in claim 12, wherein the data processing device is configured to receive operating parameters of the implement, and in that the visualization content of the touchscreen is configured to output the operating information as a function of the received operating parameters (touchscreen can display the visualization data as a function of the received operating parameters (e.g., size and dimensions of the implement), Tagalpallewar, Paragraphs 0053-0054, 0041-0047, and 0065-0069).
Regarding Claim 15, Tagalpallewar, as modified, describes the civilian tracked method as claimed in claim 10, wherein an actuator system of the mounted implement is connected to the drive system, and wherein the method further includes controllingthe actuator system via operating commands of the configured visulaizxtion content that are input on the touchscreen (touchscreen can display the visualization data as a function of the received operating parameters (e.g., size and dimensions of the implement) and the actuator system and controllable via the touchscreen inputs, Tagalpallewar, Paragraphs 0039, 0053-0054, 0041-0047, and 0065-0069).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 Applicant has amended claim 10 to recite, in relevant part, “controlling the tracked vehicle as a function of the configured visualization content of the touchscreen.” The Examiner finds that this amendment integrates the claim into the practical operation via control of the tracked vehicle. Accordingly, the claim now recites a practical application and the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn.
Prosecution Insights